The goal of this squib is to tease apart two competing approaches to wh-scope marking, the direct-dependency approach and the indirect-dependency approach, by introducing Japanese wh-scope marking. The two approaches make different predictions regarding the type of the embedded clause in wh-scope-marking constructions. The embedded clause is regarded as declarative under the direct-dependency approach but as interrogative under the indirect-dependency approach. What is especially interesting in this respect is that Japanese wh-scope marking requires the embedded clause to be marked by the interrogative complementizer ka. Japanese wh-scope marking thus provides clear morphological evidence for the indirect-dependency approach.

1 Introduction

The goal of this squib is to tease apart two approaches to wh-scope marking by introducing Japanese wh-scope marking. German and Hindi are well-investigated languages in the literature on wh-scope marking. (1) and (2) illustrate the basic examples for German and Hindi wh-scope marking, respectively.

(1) German

  • Was glaubst du [wo Maria getanzt hatte]?

  • what think you where Maria danced had

  • ‘Where do you think Maria danced?’

  • (Dayal 2000:166)

(2) Hindi

  • siitaa-ne kyaa socaa [ki ravii-ne kis-ko dekhaa]?

  • Sita-ERG what thought that Ravi-ERG who-ACC saw

  • ‘Who did Sita think that Ravi saw?’

  • (Mahajan 2000:317)

(1) and (2) have two wh-phrases, one in the matrix and one in the embedded clause. In German the wh-phrase occupies Spec,CP, whereas in Hindi it stays in situ. It is the lower wh-phrase that provides the relevant semantic content, as the translations show. Thus, the questions in (1) and (2) are answered by giving values for the embedded wh-phrases. The function of the matrix wh-item appears to be merely to extend the scope of the lower wh-item to the matrix. In fact, the embedded wh-phrase cannot take matrix scope when the matrix wh-phrase is dropped (Mahajan 2000).

(3)

  • a.

    German

    *Du glaubst [wo Maria getanzt hatte]?

    you think where Maria danced had

    Intended: ‘Where do you think Maria danced?’

  • b.

    Hindi

    *siitaa-ne socaa [ki ravii-ne kis-ko dekhaa]?

    Sita-ERG thought that Ravi-ERG who-ACC saw

    Intended: ‘Who did Sita think that Ravi saw?’

    (Mahajan 2000:319)

In this sense, the matrix wh-phrase is called a scope marker.

Wh-scope-marking constructions are attested in a wide variety of languages: for example, Bengali (Bayer 1990), Frisian (Hiemstra 1986), Hungarian (Horvath 1997), Iraqi Arabic (Wahba 1991), Kashmiri (Manetta 2010), Polish (Stepanov 2001), Romani (McDaniel 1989), Russian (Stepanov 2001), and Warlpiri (Legate 2011). Several analyses have been proposed for this kind of scope-marking question. They are roughly divided into two types (see Dayal 1994): the direct-dependency approach (e.g., Cheng 2000, Hiemstra 1986, Manetta 2010, McDaniel 1989, Sabel 2000) and the indirect-dependency approach (e.g., Dayal 1994, 2000, Fanselow and Mahajan 2000, Legate 2011, Mahajan 2000, Stepanov 2001).

The direct-dependency approach attempts to capture wh-scope-marking constructions and long-distance wh-movement constructions in structurally similar ways. This appears to be reasonable since the two allow the same kinds of answers. A feature movement version of this approach is given in (4) (Cheng 2000, Hiemstra 1986, Sabel 2000).

(4)

graphic

Under this approach, the scope marker is regarded as the wh-feature of the embedded wh-phrase. Thus, in (4) the wh-phrase first moves to the embedded Spec,CP and then its wh-feature is extracted out of the wh-word to the matrix Spec,CP, where it is spelled out as a default or unmarked wh-word, ‘what’. The difference between wh-scope marking and long-distance wh-movement concerns the item moved from the embedded Spec,CP: in long-distance wh-movement, the whole wh-phrase moves, whereas only partial features of the wh-phrase move in wh-scope marking. Manetta (2010) proposes another version of the direct-dependency approach, in which the embedded wh-word enters an Agree relation with the matrix C to form a long-distance wh-dependency, assuming that the scope marker is a wh-expletive.1 The scope marker is also regarded as a wh-expletive in another version of the direct-dependency approach, where it is linked with the embedded wh-word by coindexation or LF expletive replacement (e.g., Horvath 1997, McDaniel 1989).

On the other hand, the indirect-dependency approach attempts to relate the scope marker with the whole embedded interrogative clause, not just with the embedded wh-phrase itself. In this sense, the embedded wh-word has an indirect association with the scope marker. Dayal’s (1994, 1996) version of this approach is given in (5).

(5) [CP1 [CP1whi . . . twh . . . V] [CP2wh . . . twh . . . ]i]

According to Dayal, each clause in wh-scope marking forms a separate question, and the scope marker is not an expletive but a true wh-phrase that questions propositions (see also Legate 2011, Stepanov 2001). Dayal also suggests that the embedded question functions as a restriction on the matrix question. Thus, (1) asks the question of what you think, whose answers are limited to the set of answers to the question of where Maria danced. Hence, the rough translation of (1) is something like ‘What do you think? Where did Maria dance?’ In another version of the indirect-dependency approach, proposed by Fanselow and Mahajan (2000) and Mahajan (2000), the scope marker is treated as a wh-expletive, which undergoes expletive replacement with the whole embedded question at LF.

Crucially, the two different approaches make different predictions regarding the clause type of the embedded clause in wh-scope marking. Under the direct-dependency approach, wh-scope marking is analyzed as involving a long-distance wh-question. Thus, this approach assumes that the embedded clause is declarative, so that the embedded wh-phrase takes matrix scope. In contrast, under the indirect-dependency approach the embedded clause is regarded as an interrogative clause, which relates to the scope marker.

Until now, the literature has not identified a language that provides clear morphological evidence regarding whether the embedded clause is declarative or interrogative. For example, the Hindi complementizer ki optionally appears regardless of the type of the embedded clause, as shown in (6).

(6)

  • a.

    Embedded declarative

    raam jaantaa hai (ki) ramaa ravi-se baat

    Ram know be.PRES that Ramaa Ravi-with talk

    kare-gii.

    do-FUT

    ‘Ram knows that Ramaa will talk to Ravi.’

  • b.

    Embedded interrogative

    raam jaantaa hai (ki) ramaa kis-se baat

    Ram know be.PRES that Ramaa who-with talk

    kare-gii.

    do-FUT

    ‘Ram knows who Ramaa will talk to.’

  • c.

    Wh-scope marking

    raam kyaa jaantaa hai (ki) ramaa kis-se baat

    Ram what know be.PRES that Ramaa who-with talk

    kare-gii?

    do-FUT

    ‘Who does Ram know that Ramaa will talk to?’

  • d.

    Wh-extraction

    raam kis-se jaantaa hai (ki) ramaa t baat

    Ram who-with know be.PRES that Ramaa talk

    kare-gii?

    do-FUT

    ‘Who does Ram know that Ramaa will talk to?’

    (Veneeta Dayal, pers. comm.)

This suggests that the Hindi complementizer ki, whether it is overt or covert, does not contribute to clause typing. Also, the complementizer in German does not relate to clause typing. Although the German complementizer dass ‘that’ is absent in the embedded clause of wh-scope-marking cases like (1), its absence relates to overt movement of wh-words, not to the interrogativity of the embedded clause.2 For example, wh-movement is involved in free relatives in German, which are not questions, but they disallow the overt complementizer, as in (7).3

(7)

  • Ich werde [FR wasi (*dass) ich ti gefunden habe]

  • I will what that I found have

  • niemandem zeigen.

  • nobody show

  • ‘I won’t show to anybody what I found.’

  • (Ott 2011:184, slightly modified)

In other words, we are dealing here with the traditional doubly filled Comp effect. At any rate, German cannot tell us whether the embedded clause in wh-scope marking is declarative or interrogative.

This squib introduces wh-scope marking in Japanese, where morphology quite clearly shows whether an embedded clause is declarative or interrogative.

2 Claim

Japanese differentiates types of embedded clauses morphologically. Embedded clauses ending with to must be interpreted as declarative, while the ones with ka must be interpreted as interrogative, as shown in (8).

(8)

  • a.

    John-wa [Mary-ga ki-ta to] hanasi-ta.

    John-TOP Mary-NOM come-PASTCOMP tell-PAST

    ‘John told us that Mary came.’/*‘John told us whether

    Mary came.’

  • b.

    John-wa [Mary-ga ki-ta ka] hanasi-ta.

    John-TOP Mary-NOM come-PASTQ tell-PAST

    ‘John told us whether Mary came.’/*‘John told us that

    Mary came.’

These morphological items also determine the scope of wh-phrases in embedded clauses. A wh-phrase embedded under a to-clause takes matrix scope and establishes a long-distance dependency, whereas a wh-element embedded under a ka-clause cannot take matrix scope, as illustrated in (9) (see, e.g., Nishigauchi 1990).

(9)

  • a.

    John-wa [dare-ga ki-ta to] ii-masi-ta ka?

    John-TOP who-NOM come-PASTCOMP say-POL-PASTQ

    ‘Who did John say came?’/*‘Did John say who came?’

  • b.

    John-wa [dare-ga ki-ta ka] ii-masi-ta ka?

    John-TOP who-NOM come-PASTQ say-POL-PASTQ

    ‘Did John say who came?’/*‘Who did John say came?’

Keeping this in mind, consider the Japanese examples in (10). There are two wh-phrases, one in the matrix and one in the embedded clause, and it is the embedded wh-phrase that provides the “real” question content, just as in German and Hindi wh-scope marking.4 I argue that (10a–b) are instances of wh-scope marking.

(10)

  • a.

    Ano-hito-wa [dare-ga senkyo-ni tousensi-soo ka]

    that-person-TOP who-NOM election-to win-EVIDQ

    nante5 itte-ta kke?

    whatprop say-PASTQ

    ‘What did that person say: who would win the election?’

  • b.

    [John-ga nani-o site tukama-tta no ka]

    John-NOM what-ACC do be.arrested-PASTCOMPQ

    doo omow-are-mas-u ka?

    how think-HON-POL-PRESQ

    ‘What do you think: what did John get arrested for?’

In fact, the wh-phrase in the embedded clause cannot take matrix scope without the matrix wh-phrase, just as in German and Hindi wh-scope marking in (3) (see section 3 for more diagnostic tests).

(11)

  • a.

    Ano-hito-wa [dare-ga senkyo-ni tousensi-soo ka]

    that-person-TOP who-NOM election-to win-EVIDQ

    itte-ta kke?

    say-PASTQ

    ‘Did that person say who would win the election?’/

    *‘Who did that person say would win the election?’

  • b.

    *[John-ga nani-o site tukama-tta no ka]

    John-NOM what-ACC do be.arrested-PASTCOMPQ

    omow-are-mas-u ka?

    think-HON-POL-PRESQ

    Lit. ‘Do you think what John got arrested for?’

What is especially interesting here is that Japanese wh-scope marking requires the embedded clause to be interrogative (i.e., requires it to be marked with ka). (12) shows that it cannot be marked with to.

(12)

  • a.

    *Ano-hito-wa [dare-ga senkyo-ni tousensi-soo

    that-person-TOP who-NOM election-to win-EVID

    tonante itte-ta kke?

    COMP whatprop say-PASTQ

    ‘What did that person say: who would win the election?’

  • b.

    *[John-ga nani-o site tukama-tta to] doo

    John-NOM what-ACC do be.arrested-PASTCOMP how

    omow-are-mas-u ka?

    think-HON-POL-PRESQ

    ‘What do you think: what did John get arrested for?’

This provides evidence for the indirect-dependency approach to wh-scope marking. Recall that this approach analyzes the embedded clause, which relates to the scope marker, as interrogative. Thus, it predicts that the embedded clause is interrogative. On the other hand, the direct-dependency approach assumes that the embedded clause is declarative since wh-scope marking is a long-distance wh-question under this approach. The interrogativity of the embedded clause in Japanese wh-scope marking is unexpected under this approach since long-distance wh-questions in Japanese require the embedded clause to be declarative, not interrogative, as shown in (9). Therefore, Japanese provides morphological evidence for the indirect-dependency approach.

3 Wh-Scope Marking in Japanese

In this section, I discuss additional properties of the Japanese constructions in question, which also confirm that we are indeed dealing here with wh-scope marking.

First of all, in contrast to other languages, which have only one item for the scope marker, Japanese has two: the propositional wh-phrase nante ‘what’ as in German and Hindi and doo ‘how’ as in Polish (Stepanov 2001) and Warlpiri (Dayal 1994, Legate 2011).

(13)

  • Mary-wa [John-ga dare-ni hanasikake-ru ka]

  • Mary-TOP John-NOM who-DAT talk-PRESQ

  • nante/doo omo-tta no?

  • whatprop/how think-PASTQ

  • ‘What did Mary think: who would John talk to?’

According to Dayal’s (1994) version of the indirect-dependency approach, the scope marker is a regular propositional wh-phrase (see also Legate 2011, Stepanov 2001), while other approaches regard it as a wh-expletive or a default wh-phrase. What is relevant here is that nante ‘what’ and doo ‘how’ are in fact propositional wh-phrases in Japanese, as seen in (14).

(14)

  • Nante/Doo omo-tta no?

  • whatprop /how think-PASTQ

  • ‘What did you think?’

Dayal’s indirect-dependency approach seems to provide a better (i.e., more natural) explanation for the correspondence between the scope marker and the propositional wh-phrases, although this does not conclusively show that other approaches are incorrect.

Japanese wh-scope marking is unique in the sense that the scope marker has two variants, but it also exhibits general properties of wh-scope marking attested in other languages, as illustrated here in points A–G. The relevant points are illustrated first with German and Hindi, and then with Japanese.

A. Any wh-phrase can be associated with the scope marker.

(15)

  • a.

    German

    Was glaubst du [wo/wann/warum/wie Maria

    what think you where/when/why/how Maria

    getanzt hatte]?

    danced had

    ‘What do you think: where/when/why/how did Maria

    dance?’

    (Beck and Berman 2000:19)

  • b.

    Hindi

    jaun kyaa soctaa hai [meri kahaaN jaaye-gii]?

    John what think be.PRES Mary where go-FUT

    ‘What does John think: where will Mary go?

    (Dayal 1994:140)

  • c.

    Hindi

    tum kyaa socte ho [ki kyaa vo aaye-gaa]?6

    you what think be.PRES that whether he come-FUT

    ‘What do you think: will he come?’

    (Fanselow and Mahajan 2000:214)

(16) Japanese

  • a.

    John-wa [Mary-ga doko-ni ik-u ka] nante

    John-TOP Mary-NOM where-DAT go-PRESQ whatprop

    yosoosite-ta kke?

    predict-PASTQ

    ‘What did John predict: where would Mary go?’

  • b.

    Ano-hito-wa [itu amerika-no daitooryoo-ga

    that-person-TOP when America-GEN president-NOM

    rainiti sur-u ka] nante itte-ta kke?

    coming.Japan do-PASTQ whatprop say-PASTQ

    ‘What did he say: when would the president of the

    United States come to Japan?’

  • c.

    Soonansya-wa [yukiyama-kara doo yatte

    victim-TOP snow.mountain-from how do

    seikan si-ta ka] nante kotaete-masi-ta ka?

    coming.back do-PASTQ whatprop answer-POL-PASTQ

    ‘What did the victim answer: how did he return from

    a snow mountain?’

  • d.

    Anata-wa [kono-seitoo-ga naze

    you-TOP this-political.party-NOM why

    ooku-no-kata-kara sizi-o atumete-i-ru

    many-GEN-person-from support-ACC collect-be-PRES

    no ka] doo omow-are-mas-u ka?

    COMPQ how think-HON-POL-PRESQ

    ‘What do you think: why does this party gain support

    from many people?’

  • e.

    Kimi-wa [Sintakkusutuu-o tor-u-beki kadooka]

    you-TOP Syntax.2-ACC take-PRES-should whether

    doo omo-u?

    how think-PRES

    ‘What do you think: should we take Syntax 2?’

B. More than one wh-phrase can be associated with the scope marker.

(17)

  • a.

    German

    Was glaubst du [wann Hans an welcher Universität

    what think you when Hans at which university studiert hat]?

    studied has

    ‘What do you think: when did Hans study at which university?’

    (Dayal 1994:140)

  • b.

    Hindi

    raam-ne kyaa kahaa thaa [ki mohan-ne kab

    Ram-ERG what said be.PAST that Mohan-ERG when

    kis-ko kEse maaraa]?

    who-ACC how hit

    ‘What did Ram say: how did Mohan hit who when?’ (Mahajan 1990:170)

(18) Japanese

  • Anata-wa [John-ga ima doko-de nani-o site-ru

  • you-TOP John-NOM now where-in what-ACC do-PRES

  • no ka] doo omo-u?

  • COMPQ how think-PRES

  • ‘What do you think: what is John doing now where?’

C. An embedded wh-phrase can take matrix scope across multiple clauses if each intermediate clause also has a wh-scope marker.

(19)

  • a.

    German

    Was meinst du [was/%dass sie glaubt [wen Fritz

    what think you what/that she believes who Fritz

    liebt]]?

    loves

    ‘What do you think: what does she believe: who does

    Fritz love?’

  • b.

    Hindi

    tum kyaa socte ho [ki us-ne *(kyaa) kahaa [ki

    you what think be that he-ERG what said that

    kɔOn aaye-gaa]]?

    who come-FUT

    ‘What do you think: who did he say: who would come?’

    (Fanselow and Mahajan 2000:212)

(20) Japanese

  • [[pro Sintakkusutuu-o tor-u-beki kadooka]

  • we Syntax.2-ACC take-PRES-should whether

  • sensei-ga *(doo) omotte-ta ka] kimi-wa nante

  • teacher-NOM how think-PASTCOMP] you-TOP whatprop

  • it-ta n da kke?

  • say-PASTCOMPCOPQ

  • ‘What did you say: what did the teacher think: should we take Syntax 2?’

D. The wh-scope marker cannot be associated with an embedded declarative.

(21)

  • a.

    German

    *Was glaubst du [dass Maria mit Hans gesprochen

    what think you that Maria with Hans spoken

    hat]?

    has

  • b.

    Hindi

    *jaun kyaa jaantaa hai [meri ravi-se baat

    John what know be-PRES Mary Ravi-with talk

    kare-gii]?

    do-FUT

    (Dayal 1994:141)

(22) Japanese

  • *Kimi-wa [John-ga Mary-ni hanasikake-ta to] doo

  • you-TOP John-NOM Mary-DAT speak-PASTCOMP how

  • omo-u?

  • think-PRES

As Dayal (1994) notes, German and Hindi have declarative counter-parts of wh-scope marking, where the scope marker is an optional pronoun/demonstrative associated with an embedded declarative. Japanese also has a declarative version of wh-scope marking.

(23)

  • a.

    German

    Ich habe (es) bedauert [dass Hans Maria eingeladen

    I have it regretted that Hans Maria invited

    hat].

    has

    ‘I regretted that Hans invited Maria.’

    (Fanselow 2017:2902, slightly modified)

  • b.

    Hindi

    siitaa (yeh) jaantii hai [ki ravi-ne anu-ko

    Sita this know be.PRES that Ravi-ERG Anu-ACC

    dekhaa].

    saw

    ‘Sita knows that Ravi saw Anu.’

    (Dayal 2017:160)

(24) Japanese

  • Boku-wa [John-ga Mary-ni hanasikake-ta to]

  • I-TOP John-NOM Mary-DAT talk-PASTCOMP

  • (koo) omot-ta.

  • this.way think-PAST

  • ‘I thought that John talked to Mary.’

E. The predicate of the clause containing the wh-scope marker must be able to take a [−Q] clausal complement.7

(25)

  • a.

    German

    *Was fragst du [mit wem Maria gesprochen hat]?

    what ask you with whom Maria spoken has

  • b.

    Hindi

    *jaun kyaa puuchtaa hai [meri kis-se baat

    John what ask be.PRES Mary who-with talk

    kare-gii]?

    do-FUT

    (Dayal 1994:141)

(26) Japanese

  • *Kimi-wa [John-ga dare-ni hanasikake-ta ka] nante

  • you-TOP John-NOM who-DAT speak-PASTQ whatprop

  • tazune-ta?

  • ask-PAST

F. The wh-scope marker cannot be associated with a clausemate wh-phrase.

(27)

  • a.

    German

    *Was ist sie warum gekommen?

    what is she why come

    (Müller 1997:255)

  • b.

    Hindi

    *meri kyaakyuuN aaye-gii?

    Mary what why come-FUT

(28) Japanese

  • *John-wa nazedoo/nante ki-ta no?

  • John-TOP why how/whatprop come-PASTCOMP

G. Wh-scope marking across sentential negation is ungrammatical.

(29)

  • a.

    German

    *Was glaubst du nicht [mit wem Maria gesprochen

    what think you not with whom Maria talked

    hat]?

    has

    (Dayal 1994:145)

  • b.

    Hindi

    *jaun kyaanahiiN soctaa hai [meri kis-se baat

    John what not think be.PRES Mary who-with talk

    kare-gii]?

    do-FUT

    (Dayal 1996:57)

(30) Japanese

  • *Kimi-wa [John-ga dare-ni hanasikake-ru ka] doo

  • you-TOP John-NOM who-DAT talk-PRESQ how

  • omow-anak-atta?

  • think-NEG-PAST

The above data confirm that Japanese has wh-scope marking. In the appendix, I discuss a similar construction where the embedded interrogative appears with the postposition -nituite ‘about’, but I ultimately argue that it is not an instance of wh-scope marking (https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00379).

4 Conclusion

This squib has shown that Japanese has wh-scope marking, just like German and Hindi, and that Japanese scope-marking constructions can help us tease apart two competing approaches to wh-scope marking, the direct-dependency approach and the indirect-dependency approach. Crucially, the two approaches make different predictions regarding the type of the embedded clause in wh-scope-marking constructions. The embedded clause is regarded as declarative under the direct-dependency approach but as interrogative under the indirect-dependency approach. What is particularly interesting in this respect is that the embedded clause in Japanese wh-scope-marking constructions is marked by the interrogative complementizer ka. Japanese wh-scope marking thus provides clear morphological evidence for the indirect-dependency approach.

Notes

1 See Dayal 2017 for arguments against Manetta’s (2010) approach, including data from Japanese.

2 It should be noted that there are varieties of German where dass is quite generally tolerated in embedded questions.

3 According to Ott (2011), a true embedded question appearing in the middle field of a sentence like (7) degrades the grammaticality of the sentence, as shown in (i).

  • (i)

    ??Mir hat sie [Q wer es gesagt hat] ja nicht gesagt.

    me has she who it said has PRT not said

    ‘She didn’t tell me who said it.’

The asymmetry between (7) and (i) indicates that the clause labeled as FR in (7) should not be analyzed as an embedded question.

4 As shown in section 3, languages differ regarding whether they use ‘what’ or ‘how’ as the scope marker in wh-scope-marking questions.

5Nante ‘whatprop’ consists of nani ‘what’ and -te (complementizer), and it behaves only as a propositional wh-phrase. Thus, nante ‘whatprop’ has a different distribution than nani ‘what’, which can be an individual wh-phrase like German was and Hindi kyaa.

6 Hindi and German differ with respect to the possibility of yes/no questions occurring with wh-scope marking, German (i) being unacceptable.

7 There is some crosslinguistic variation regarding what kind of verb can cooccur with the scope marker. In Japanese and German, a factive verb cannot be the predicate of the clause containing the scope marker, as in (i), but this is possible in Hindi (Dayal 1994).

  • (i)

    *Anata-wa [John-ga dare-ni hanasikake-ru ka] nante

    you-TOP John-NOM who-DAT talk-PRESQ whatprop

    siri-masi-ta ka?

    know-POL-PASTQ

For helpful feedback and discussion, I would like to thank the audiences at the 25th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, as well as three anonymous reviewers and the Squibs and Discussion editors. I am also very grateful to Magdalena Kaufmann, Stefan Kaufmann, Veneeta Dayal, and especially Željko Bošković for their insightful comments. All errors and omissions are my own.

References

Bayer,
Josef
.
1990
.
Directionality of government and Logical Form: A study of focusing particles and WH-scope
.
Habilitation thesis, University of Konstanz
.
Beck,
Sigrid
, and
Stephen
Berman
.
2000
.
Wh-scope marking: Direct vs. indirect dependency
.
In Lutz, Müller, and von Stechow
,
17
44
.
Cheng,
Lisa Lai-Shen
.
2000
.
Moving just the feature
.
In Lutz, Müller, and von Stechow
,
79
99
.
Dayal,
Veneeta
.
1994
.
Scope marking as indirect wh-dependency
.
Natural Language Semantics
2
:
137
170
.
Dayal,
Veneeta
.
1996
.
Locality in WH quantification: Questions and relative clauses
.
Dordrecht
:
Kluwer
.
Dayal,
Veneeta
.
2000
.
Scope marking: Cross-linguistic variation in indirect dependency
.
In Lutz, Müller, and von Stechow
,
157
193
.
Dayal,
Veneeta
.
2017
.
Does Hindi-Urdu have feature-driven wh-movement to Spec,VP?
Linguistic Inquiry
48
:
159
172
.
Fanselow,
Gisbert
.
2017
. Partial wh-movement. In
The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax
, ed. by
Martin
Everaert
and
Henk C.
van Riemsdijk
,
2885
2941
. 2nd ed.
Somerset, NJ
:
John Wiley
.
Fanselow,
Gisbert
, and
Anoop
Mahajan
.
2000
.
Towards a Minimalist theory of wh-expletives, wh-copying, and successive cyclicity
.
In Lutz, Müller, and von Stechow
195
230
.
Hiemstra,
Inge
.
1986
.
Some aspects of wh-questions in Frisian
.
NO-WELE: North Western European Language Evolution
8
:
97
110
.
Horvath,
Julia
.
1997
.
The status of ‘wh-expletives’ and the partial wh-movement construction of Hungarian
.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
15
:
509
572
.
Legate,
Julie Anne
.
2011
.
Warlpiri wh-scope marking
.
Syntax
14
:
97
121
.
Lutz,
Uli
,
Gereon
M üller
, and
Arnim
von Stechow
, eds.
2000
.
Wh-scope marking
.
Amsterdam
:
John Benjamins
.
Mahajan,
Anoop
.
1990
.
The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory
.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT
.
Mahajan,
Anoop
.
2000
.
Towards a unified treatment of wh-expletives in Hindi and German
.
In Lutz, Müller, and von Stechow
,
317
332
.
Manetta,
Emily
.
2010
.
Wh-expletives in Hindi-Urdu: The vP phase
.
Linguistic Inquiry
41
:
1
34
.
McDaniel,
Dana
.
1989
.
Partial and multiple wh-movement
.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
7
:
565
604
.
Müller,
Gereon
.
1997
.
Partial wh-movement and Optimality Theory
.
The Linguistic Review
14
:
249
306
.
Nishigauchi,
Taisuke
.
1990
.
Quantification in the theory of grammar
.
Dordrecht
:
Springer
.
Ott,
Dennis
.
2011
.
A note on free relative clauses in the theory of phases
.
Linguistic Inquiry
42
:
183
192
.
Sabel,
Joachim
.
2000
.
Partial wh-movement and the typology of wh-questions
.
In Lutz, Müller, and von Stechow
,
409
446
.
Stepanov,
Arthur
.
2001
.
Cyclic domains in syntactic theory
.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut
.
Wahba,
Wafaa Abdel-Faheem Batran
.
1991
. LF movement in Iraqi Arabic. In
Logical structure and linguistic structure: Cross-linguistic perspectives
, ed. by
C.-T. James
Huang
and
Robert
May
,
253
276
.
Dordrecht
:
Springer
.

Supplementary data